daverupa wrote: Paticcasamuppada/-nirodha is not to do with that physical dart at all.

Then what is your explanation for why Ven. Sariputta speaks of

"Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death. This aging & this death are called aging & death. "

in his exposition of Paticcasamuppada/-nirodha?

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

kirk5a wrote:If it is not to do with that physical dart at all, then what is your explanation for why Ven. Sariputta describes aging and death as he does - as something that occurs to the physical body?

The term "aging & death" is never isolated from dukkha; it tends to serve simply as the first term in a chain, thus: aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. MN 141 clearly makes this point when it defines each of these terms (as well as "not getting what is wanted" and "pancupadanakkhandha") as all being part of the first truth, that of suffering.

In fact, here is an example of "aging & death" being dropped altogether:

SN 12.23 wrote:Thus fabrications have ignorance as their prerequisite, consciousness has fabrications as its prerequisite, name-&-form has consciousness as its prerequisite, the six sense media have name-&-form as their prerequisite, contact has the six sense media as its prerequisite, feeling has contact as its prerequisite, craving has feeling as its prerequisite, clinging has craving as its prerequisite, becoming has clinging as its prerequisite, birth has becoming as its prerequisite, stress & suffering have birth as their prerequisite, conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite, joy has conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite, dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its prerequisite.

Here, where "aging & death" et al would normally go in the sequence, we have instead "stress & suffering", which makes the point that dukkha is the issue, not aging per se. Indeed, I can't get behind the claim that jati must refer to one's future birth because

SN 12.35 wrote:When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One: "Which aging & death, lord? And whose is this aging & death?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. If one were to ask, 'Which aging & death? And whose is this aging & death?' and if one were to ask, 'Is aging & death one thing, and is this the aging & death of someone/something else?' both of them would have the same meaning, even though their words would differ. When there is the view that the soul is the same as the body, there isn't the leading of the holy life. And when there is the view that the soul is one thing and the body another, there isn't the leading of the holy life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata points out the Dhamma in between: From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death."

"Which birth, lord? And whose is this birth?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said...

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

daverupa wrote: Indeed, I can't get behind the claim that jati must refer to one's future birth

DO explains that birth arises in dependence on being / becoming in the 3 realms ( see extract below ). It doesn't matter whether one thinks of this as a current birth or future birth.

Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

daverupa wrote:The bodily dart is never attenuated in life as both the putthujjana and the arahat feel that dart. Paticcasamuppada/-nirodha is not to do with that physical dart at all.

But DO is describing samsara for a putthujjana, not an arahant. The putthujjana experiences the physical dart as dukkha, the arahant does not. So DO is describing how both the physical and mental darts create dukkha for a putthujjana - this is why descriptions of dukkha in the suttas include aging, disease and death, pain etc.

Spiny O'Norman wrote:But DO is describing samsara for a putthujjana, not an arahant. The putthujjana experiences the physical dart as dukkha, the arahant does not. So DO is describing how both the physical and mental darts create dukkha for a putthujjana - this is why descriptions of dukkha in the suttas include aging, disease and death, pain etc.

Spiny

The physical dart remains unchanged in both cases, yet the mental dart is removed in the case of the arahat; dukkha is removed in the case of the arahat. There can be no dukkha in the physical dart, it is rather the mind which is defiled by incoming defilements - dukkha exists, but as a mental phenomenon. It is not inherent in physicality.

This is why I said that the bodily dart is never attenuated in life:

"But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one.

---

Spiny O'Norman wrote:It doesn't matter whether one thinks of this as a current birth or future birth.

Yet it's neither; it's symptomatic of the appropriation of this very lifespan, now, as "mine". Whether one thinks that "this life is the only one I have", or whether one thinks "I will have multiple lives (unless...)", the appropriation is the problem, not the speculative content.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:The physical dart remains unchanged in both cases, yet the mental dart is removed in the case of the arahat; dukkha is removed in the case of the arahat. There can be no dukkha in the physical dart, it is rather the mind which is defiled by incoming defilements - dukkha exists, but as a mental phenomenon. It is not inherent in physicality.

But the Maha-satipatthana Sutta makes it clear that dukkha includes both bodily and mental pain, ie both darts - see the extract below. And being pierced by any type of dart sounds painful.

387. Bhikkhus, what is the Noble Truth of Dukkha'?Birth is dukkha. Aging also is dukkha. Death also is dukkha. Grief, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair are also dukkha. To have to associate with those persons or things one dislikes is also dukkha; to be separated from those one loves or likes is also dukkha; the craving for what one cannot get is also dukkha; in short, the five Aggregates which are the objects of Clinging are dukkha.

393. And, bhikkhus, what is pain? The bodily pain and bodily unpleasantness, the painful and unpleasant feeling produced by contact of the body, — this, bhikkhus, is called pain.

394. And, bhikkhus, what is distress? The mental pain and mental unpleasantness, the painful and unpleasant feeling produced by contact of the mind, — this, bhikkhus, is called distress.

daverupa wrote:"But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one.

Doesn't this quote support what I'm saying? There is the dukkha of a painful bodily feeling ( first dart ) but not the dukkha of a painful mental feeling arising from it ( second dart )?

Spiny O'Norman wrote:Doesn't this quote support what I'm saying? There is the dukkha of a painful bodily feeling ( first dart ) but not the dukkha of a painful mental feeling arising from it ( second dart )?

Spiny

As to that, I will ask you a question; answer as you see fit.

DN 16 wrote:But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

Was the Buddha experiencing dukkha, here?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

DN 16 wrote:But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

Was the Buddha experiencing dukkha, here?

Of course. Pain does not magically stop being dukkha just because one endures it mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed. It's just that there is no additional mental dukkha (which is a major factor of the overall dukkha-ness). That's the whole point of the Arrow Sutta.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

kirk5a wrote:Pain does not magically stop being dukkha just because one endures it mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

Sure it does - though not magically but rather dependently. The Arrow Sutta is exemplifying the difference between pain and dukkha.

AN 6.63 wrote:And what is the diversity in stress? There is major stress & minor, slowly fading & quickly fading. This is called the diversity in stress...

...Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns stress in this way, the cause by which stress comes into play in this way, the diversity of stress in this way, the result of stress in this way, the cessation of stress in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of stress.

There is diversity in dukkha; but the claim that the cessation of dukkha per the Path applies to only some sorts of dukkha is nowhere in evidence; quite the contrary, paticcasamuppada describes the origin of dukkha, not the origin of some dukkha; paticcanirodha describes the cessation of dukkha, not the cessation of some dukkha.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:There is diversity in dukkha; but the claim that the cessation of dukkha per the Path applies to only some sorts of dukkha is nowhere in evidence;

Right. Nobody is claiming that, so no problem.

quite the contrary, paticcasamuppada describes the origin of dukkha, not the origin of some dukkha; paticcanirodha describes the cessation of dukkha, not the cessation of some dukkha.

I agree. But the total cessation of dukkha is not at the point the Arrow Sutta describes, when there is still pain. That is the "nibbana property with fuel remaining." The total cessation is after those aggregates cease altogether, not to arise again. "Nibbana property with no fuel remaining."

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with fuel remaining.[1]

And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining."[2]

These two proclaimed by the one with vision,Unbinding properties the one independent, the one who is Such:[3] one property, here in this lifewith fuel remaining from the destruction of the guide to becoming,and that with no fuel remaining,after this life,in which all becoming totally ceases.

MN 140 wrote:"Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one senses it disjoined from it. When sensing a feeling limited to the body, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.' When sensing a feeling limited to life, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to life.' One discerns that 'With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.'

Sensations of pleasure and pain are part of nibbana with residue, but such a one senses them disjoined, and they are not dukkha.

I suppose we'll simply continue to disagree on this point, so I'll depart the discussion on that note.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Apologies that I cannot recall the source, but I have read the opinion that dukkha-dukkha (suffering of suffering), viparinama-dukkha (suffering due to change) and sankhara-dukkha (suffering due to formations) are not to be regarded different sets/subsets of suffering, but rather, progressively more refined understandings of dukkha. Whoever said it (possibly Thanissaro Bhikkhu?), I'm inclined to agree.

The latter of those three appears to be the most suitable understanding to bring to suttas such as the one presently being studied, particularly as it is concerned with formations that arise dependently upon requisite conditions.

Spiny O'Norman wrote:Doesn't this quote support what I'm saying? There is the dukkha of a painful bodily feeling ( first dart ) but not the dukkha of a painful mental feeling arising from it ( second dart )?

Spiny

As to that, I will ask you a question; answer as you see fit.

DN 16 wrote:But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

Was the Buddha experiencing dukkha, here?

I don't know. As I said the Maha-sattipatthana Sutta includes bodily pain in the "definition" of dukkha.

daverupa wrote: The Arrow Sutta is exemplifying the difference between pain and dukkha..

I don't find this argument convincing, because being shot with arrows of any sort is painful. The Arrow Sutta is simply saying that a well-instructed disciple experiences the physical pain ( first arrow ) but not the associated mental pain ( second arrow ).